Dataset Information

Randomised, non-inferiority, controlled procedural outcomes TrIal comParing reverse T And Protrusion versus double-kissing and crush stenting: protocol of the TIP TAP I randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:To assess the impact of 'reverse T and Protrusion' (TAP) technique on the outcome after stenting of true bifurcation lesions of the left main (LM) or proximal epicardial vessels as compared with double kissing (DK)-crush technique. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:50 consecutive patients with true coronary bifurcation lesion (Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1) of the LM or the proximal main vessels, requiring a two-stent technique as first-line strategy at University Medical Center Mainz, are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to reverse TAP or DK-crush stenting. As recommended by best clinical practice, final angiographic result is evaluated and optical coherence tomographic (OCT) intracoronary imaging is performed to assess and optimise the final result. The primary end point is defined as the percentage of stent expansion in the side branch. Secondary end points consist of angiographic and procedural success (assessed until patient's discharge), procedural parameters (procedural time, fluoroscopy time, use of devices, X-ray dose) and OCT parameters expressing expansion of the stents. Safety parameters include all adverse events up to 6?months after discharge. A clinical, angiographic and intracoronary imaging control at 6?months is planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol complies with good clinical practice and the ethical principles described in the Declaration of Helsinki and is approved by the local ethics committee. The results of the trial will be published as original article(s) in medical journals and/or as presentation at congresses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03714750).

SUBMITTER: Rakhimov K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7304799 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised, non-inferiority, controlled procedural outcomes TrIal comParing reverse T And Protrusion versus double-kissing and crush stenting: protocol of the TIP TAP I randomised trial.

Rakhimov Kudrat K Buono Andrea A Anadol Remzi R Ullrich Helen H Knorr Maike M Ahoopai Majid M Münzel Thomas T Gori Tommaso T

BMJ open 20200616 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>To assess the impact of 'reverse T and Protrusion' (TAP) technique on the outcome after stenting of true bifurcation lesions of the left main (LM) or proximal epicardial vessels as compared with double kissing (DK)-crush technique.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>50 consecutive patients with true coronary bifurcation lesion (Medina 1,1,1 or 0,1,1) of the LM or the proximal main vessels, requiring a two-stent technique as first-line strategy at University Medical Center Mainz, ar ...[more]

PMID: 32554736

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a debate regarding the best stent strategy for unprotected distal left main (LM) bifurcation disease. Among two-stent techniques, double-kissing and crush (DKC) is favored in current guidelines but is complex and requires expertise. Reverse T and Protrusion (rTAP) was shown to be a comparable strategy regarding short-term efficacy and safety, but with reduced procedural complexity.AimTo compare rTAP vs. DKC by optical coherence tomography (OCT) on the intermediate term.Methods52 consecutive patients with complex unprotected LM stenoses (Medina 0,1,1 or 1,1,1) were randomized to either DKC or rTAP and followed-up for a median of 189[180-263] days for clinical and OCT outcomes.ResultsAt follow-up OCT showed similar change in the side branch (SB) ostial area (primary endpoint). The confluence polygon showed a higher percentage of malapposed stent struts in the rTAP group that did not reach statistical significance (rTAP: 9.7[4.4-18.3] % vs. DKC: 3[0.07-10.9] %; p = 0.064). It also showed a trend towards larger neointimal area relative to the stent area (DKC: 8.8 [6.9 to 13.4] % vs. rTAP: 6.5 [3.9 to 8.9] %; p = 0.07), and smaller luminal area (DKC: 9.54[8.09-11.07] mm2 vs. rTAP: 11.21[9.53-12.42] mm²; p = 0.09) in the DKC group. The minimum luminal area in the parent vessel distal to the bifurcation was significantly smaller in the DKC group (DKC: 4.64 [3.64 to 5.34] mm² vs. rTAP: 6.76 [5.20 to 7.29] mm²; p = 0.03). This segment also showed a trend for smaller stent areas (p = 0.05 to 0.09), and a bigger neointimal area relative to the stent area (DKC: 8.94 [5.43 to 10.5]% vs. rTAP: 4.75 [0.08 to 8.5]%; p = 0.06) in the DKC patients. The incidence of clinical events was comparably low in both groups.ConclusionAt 6-months, OCT showed a similar change in the SB ostial area (primary endpoint) in rTAP compared to DKC. There was also a trend for smaller luminal areas in the confluence polygon and the distal parent vessel, and a larger neointimal area relative to the stent area, in DKC, along with a tendency for more malapposed stent struts in rTAP.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03714750, identifier: NCT03714750.

Project description:ObjectiveTo decrease the procedural risk of carotid revascularisation it is crucial to understand the mechanisms of procedural stroke. This study analysed the features of procedural strokes associated with carotid artery stenting (CAS) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) within the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) to identify the underlying pathophysiological mechanism.Materials and methodsPatients with recently symptomatic carotid stenosis (1,713) were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA. Procedural strokes were classified by type (ischaemic or haemorrhagic), time of onset (intraprocedural or after the procedure), side (ipsilateral or contralateral), severity (disabling or non-disabling), and patency of the treated artery. Only patients in whom the allocated treatment was initiated were included. The most likely pathophysiological mechanism was determined using the following classification system: (1) carotid-embolic, (2) haemodynamic, (3) thrombosis or occlusion of the revascularised carotid artery, (4) hyperperfusion, (5) cardio-embolic, (6) multiple, and (7) undetermined.ResultsProcedural stroke occurred within 30 days of revascularisation in 85 patients (CAS 58 out of 791 and CEA 27 out of 819). Strokes were predominately ischaemic (77; 56 CAS and 21 CEA), after the procedure (57; 37 CAS and 20 CEA), ipsilateral to the treated artery (77; 52 CAS and 25 CEA), and non-disabling (47; 36 CAS and 11 CEA). Mechanisms of stroke were carotid-embolic (14; 10 CAS and 4 CEA), haemodynamic (20; 15 CAS and 5 CEA), thrombosis or occlusion of the carotid artery (15; 11 CAS and 4 CEA), hyperperfusion (9; 3 CAS and 6 CEA), cardio-embolic (5; 2 CAS and 3 CEA) and multiple causes (3; 3 CAS). In 19 patients (14 CAS and 5 CEA) the cause of stroke remained undetermined.ConclusionAlthough the mechanism of procedural stroke in both CAS and CEA is diverse, haemodynamic disturbance is an important mechanism. Careful attention to blood pressure control could lower the incidence of procedural stroke.

Project description:IntroductionUp to 40% of orthopaedic injuries in children require a closed reduction, almost always necessitating procedural sedation. Intravenous ketamine is the most commonly used sedative agent. However, intravenous insertion is painful and can be technically difficult in children. We hypothesise that a combination of intranasal dexmedetomidine plus intranasal ketamine (Ketodex) will be non-inferior to intravenous ketamine for effective sedation in children undergoing a closed reduction.Methods and analysisThis is a six-centre, four-arm, adaptive, randomised, blinded, controlled, non-inferiority trial. We will include children 4-17 years with a simple upper limb fracture or dislocation that requires sedation for a closed reduction. Participants will be randomised to receive either intranasal Ketodex (one of three dexmedetomidine and ketamine combinations) or intravenous ketamine. The primary outcome is adequate sedation as measured using the Paediatric Sedation State Scale. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, time to wakening and adverse effects. The results of both per protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be reported for the primary outcome. All inferential analyses will be undertaken using a response-adaptive Bayesian design. Logistic regression will be used to model the dose-response relationship for the combinations of intranasal Ketodex. Using the Average Length Criterion for Bayesian sample size estimation, a survey-informed non-inferiority margin of 17.8% and priors from historical data, a sample size of 410 participants will be required. Simulations estimate a type II error rate of 0.08 and a type I error rate of 0.047.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from Clinical Trials Ontario for London Health Sciences Centre and McMaster Research Ethics Board. Other sites have yet to receive approval from their institutions. Informed consent will be obtained from guardians of all participants in addition to assent from participants. Study data will be submitted for publication regardless of results.Trial registration numberNCT0419525.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare three groups of patients who underwent uncomplicated ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) and to evaluate whether stenting could be eliminated after the procedure, as there is no consensus about whether a ureteric stent should be placed after uncomplicated ureteroscopy for stone retrieval.Patients and methodsIn this randomised clinical trial (NCT04145063) 105 patients underwent uncomplicated URSL for ureteric stones. They were prospectively randomised into three groups: Group 1 (34 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent, Group 2 (35 patients) with a double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string, and Group 3 (36 patients) with no ureteric stent placed after the procedure. The outcomes measured were: postoperative visual analogue scale (VAS) score for flank pain and dysuria score, urgency, frequency, suprapubic pain, haematuria, analgesia requirement, operative time, re-hospitalisation, and return to normal physical activity.ResultsThe mean (SD) operative time was significantly longer in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3, at 22.2 (9.1), 20.2 (6) and 15.1 (7.1) min, respectively (P < 0.001). The results of the VAS for flank pain and dysuria scores, urgency, frequency, haematuria, and suprapubic pain showed a significant difference at all time-points of follow-up, being significantly higher in groups 1 and 2 compared to Group 3 (all P < 0.001). Further analysis showed that measured outcomes, and analgesia need for groups 1 and 2 were similar, at all time-points except at week 1 and 1 month where Group 2 patients' had less symptoms (P < 0.001).ConclusionDouble pigtail ureteric stent placement appears to be unnecessary in procedures considered 'uncomplicated' by operating urologists during surgery. The advantages of the double pigtail ureteric stent with extraction string over the double pigtail ureteric stent only include earlier and easier removal with earlier relief of symptoms, and less analgesia requirements.AbbreviationsKUB: plain abdominal radiograph of the kidneys, ureters and bladder; URSL: ureteroscopic lithotripsy; VAS: visual analogue scale.

Dataset Information

Randomised, non-inferiority, controlled procedural outcomes TrIal comParing reverse T And Protrusion versus double-kissing and crush stenting: protocol of the TIP TAP I randomised trial.

Publications

Randomised, non-inferiority, controlled procedural outcomes TrIal comParing reverse T And Protrusion versus double-kissing and crush stenting: protocol of the TIP TAP I randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets